Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

26 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< October 25 October 27 >

Purge server cache

El Taiger

[edit]
El Taiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.

the topic of the article seems not to comply with WP:SINGER, not WP:WEB, and just looking at the page shows that it also lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to comply with WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage. There is a BBC article [1]. There is also coverage before death, in 2022, for instance [2][3][4] He seems a prominent artist. BilboBeggins (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source is about his death, while the others are press releases about an album and tour. Not significant independent coverage. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 16:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need the sources and significabt coverage to be before death of a person. BBC article has significant coverage, it has biography. There are also Cuban sources feom before his death. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs further consideration. First, the nominator is a very new editor who didn't inform the article creator. Also, it would be helpful to see a source review, especially given the additions by Inter&anthro to the article. As AFD regulars know, we don't base deletion decisions on the condition of the article at the time of the discussion but on the notabiity of the article subject. Sources do not have to be added to the article, they can be brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup

[edit]
1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:FOOTBALL, no significant coverage and nothing remarkable that merits inclusion of this particular season in comparison with other seasons which don't have articles Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. I originally closed this discussion as "Redirect" but was asked by an editor whether or not there was a strong consensus for this outcome and after reviewing, I decided to revert myself and relist this discussion. Pinging participants User:Pkbwcgs, User:Govvy, User:GiantSnowman and User:Nfitz
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dipali Goenka

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dipali Goenka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional biography of a businesswoman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. Also, the entire page is dominated by company references, while her personal references are limited to either WP:ROUTINE or WP:ADMASQ. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been some misleading promotionalism in this article: in Recognition it said "Forbes magazine named her as the 16th most powerful woman in Asia and the 4th in India in 2016", but she was listed 16th in a list which explicitly states "this list -- which is presented alphabetically and is not intended to be a ranking". (I've edited this). This suggests that all sourcing needs very careful checking. PamD 08:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I’m not going to waste my time and yours with a detailed analysis of the made up in one day award and passing mentions. Suffice to say that she’s not notable. We’ve seen a lot of those pages, but in 2024 everyone knows we are not a free website listing everyone who runs a large business. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i am sorry but she is not the run of the mill businesswoman. She heads world’s one the largest textile companies. Forbes ranked her as the 16th most powerful woman in Asia. She has represented India at various international forums, including Harvard India and the World Economic Forum, and has chaired and served on the boards of major organizations. Agree with you and the page nomination about the promotional language in the article. Thus made significant improvements and removed promotional content/language and unnecessary sources and added more sigcov sources. There are lots of sources on google·Also created lawsuit for neutrality.she passes WP:GNG.Ashwithride (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forbes lists her as the 16th, alphabetically, in a list of 50 most powerful women in Asia which explicitly says that it "is presented alphabetically and is not intended to be a ranking" (even if a Forbes India writer seems to misunderstand this). I corrected the statement in the "Recognition" section, but hadn't noticed that it was also misprepresented in the lead, which I have now corrected. The enthusiasm which some editors have for misrepresenting this listing makes one cautious about other claims, which should all be very carefully checked. PamD 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that User:Ashwithride created the article and appears not to have edited any other articles in en.wiki since creating their account on 9 July 20204. PamD 13:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that, in parallel, There was an attempt to remove controversies from Welspun Living's page on 13 February 2024, Welspun Corp's page got updated on 24 May 2024, Welspun Group name changed to Welspun World, and page got updated too on 12 June 2024; Dipali Goenka's page created on 10 July 2024, Welspun Enterprises' page created on 14 October 2024. Most of these pages are flagged for conflicts of interest, making it appear as if this year is especially focused on Welspun activity on Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep vote here from the article creator so I'm relisting this discussion. Please review changes made to the article by Ashwithride since its nomination and judge whether they have led to an improvement in this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Tambudzai Mncube

[edit]
Natasha Tambudzai Mncube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article relies on a very limited number of sources, primarily one cited article and a reference to Britannica. Many key details, such as her participation in "Big Brother The Chase" in 2013, her origin, and her personal history, are uncited. A WP:BEFORE search brought nothing out, and the article reads more like a promotional profile than an encyclopedic entry. The article fails to meet WP:GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed reference to "Britannica" is in fact linked to the same Drum (SNL24) article as the first ref. So that there's only one source. It may be considered significant although based on an interview but I suppose it's not enough. The awards that she has apparently founded the Shining star Africa awards have received some coverage. Again, is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I genuinely cannot find anything outside of the Drum source, despite a decent search. It is mainly about her (not just about the award with passing mentions). But it's WP:PRIMARY as it's 90% direct quotes from her with the other 10% being "She told the drum that..." and primary sources don't count towards notability per WP:BIO. Therefore, I don't believe she presently meets the requirements. MolecularPilot 05:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Qadeer

[edit]
Nabeel Qadeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Written like a PROMO. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate finance in the United States

[edit]
Climate finance in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AI-generated redundant fork of Climate change policy of the United States sourced entirely to primary sources. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, the first version had bullet point and errors in format that I thought was referred to AI format. I have changed the format. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netforcarbon To be clear, did you use AI to write this article? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raccoon not AI to write the article but I do have an AI review and format assistant. I also use an AI editor but the content is from my notes and reviews of other documents on the US commitments and outcomes pertaining to climate finance which is also within my profession. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I continued this discussion on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was alerted to this from the WikiProject Climate Change talk page. I haven't looked at the actual content yet but in general, I am against creating such sub-sub-articles, which usually end up lingering with very low pageviews. Why not rather include some of this content as an example in the article climate finance? Or else within a U.S. specific climate change article like suggested above. Like Climate change policy of the United States or Climate change in the United States.
Also if WikiEdu or someone is organising a drive to create lots of these "climate finance" type articles for specific countries then please alert others through the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change (early on, not just at the end). Thanks to User:FULBERT for the recent alert.
Also, using Chat-GPT (or similar) for language polishing or for ideas for structuring the article is perfectly fine. Using it for actually up to date content generation might be flawed. I am curious to learn how (if) you used AI for this exercise? If done correctly and carefully there is nothing wrong with that. But you'd have to be able to detect hallucinations and wrong information while working with it. EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EMsmile I did not use AI to write content but I do use AI for format and for the final review. I will go back to rewrite content. I appreciate the insight to the wikiworld and the community of editors! Excellence in information sharing and climate finance in the Unites States is relevant and needs its own place of explanations that ultimately lead to the transparency of climate actions pertaining to financing. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, welcome to Wikipedia, User:Netforcarbon. I hope you like it here. My point is that if you want your content to be seen and read, then you might be better off integrating it into an existing article rather than creating a new one from scratch. I don't know if you have discovered the page view graphs yet? You can access it from the top "view history" tab. In general, I recommend to new Wikipedia editors to rather improve and enrich existing articles with higher pageviews rather than focusing on low pageview articles or even completely new articles. You have more impact with the high pageview articles. Also, if climate finance already has quite low pageviews (see here) then what makes you think that "climate finance in country X" would get any more pageviews? EMsmile (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Netforcarbon and Will (Wiki Ed). If you are interested, I think a discussion about the campaign on the wp:WikiProject Climate Change talk page could be fruitful. This would be a less stressful and more collaborative environment than AfD. One of my concerns at the moment is this and possibly other articles serving as an uncritical, promotional listing of things that governments and corporations have called climate finance. Unfortunately quite a few things that are labelled climate finance are greenwashing, fossil fuel subsidies in disguise, or just ineffective. If we could start with a broader conversation about your goals and your skillsets, we could help you with things like figuring out what sources to use and choosing high-impact articles to create/improve. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot Thanks for that recommendation - I'll post something soon. I also appreciate the greenwashing concern. I think this is exactly why we should be focusing on this area. Separating substantive climate change mitigation action from greenwashing is important. The funding element is also challenging, but its as important as any other kind of legislation. Thanks again! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the US has such enormous financial clout that the topic seems to me to be notable. US policy and finance are both so influential there should be enough info for two articles. Although they will overlap somewhat not all policy is finance (for example policy can make regulations or diplomacy) and not all finance is policy (for example Tesla was only partly government funded - a lot was private, and much else is private finance e.g. 3 Mile Island). Chidgk1 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Econofoods

[edit]
Econofoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:, sorry, just seeing your comment now or would have pinged you earlier. The two you cited from The Register Mail are both about two local stores closing. In fact, they are basically the same (one from the employee perspective and one from the customer perspective). Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the chain itself. The other two are business listings. Are there any references out there you found that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree those sources might not meet a stricter standard, I think it meets GNG, along with the other local news already in the article, and I'm not sure that merging with Nash Finch or SpartanNash is necessary, but I can't see a full-scale delete beyond that merger, and I think other times when companies have been merged it's muddled up the history in a confusing way that could be resolved by treating as separate articles. A regional grocery chain with not a lot of stores can be notable with sourcing that describes it with a bit of narrative as these local stories do, through a local lens, but aren't ROUTINE or press releases. They describe the acquisition of the chain by Nash Finch. “When Nash-Finch came in, I was working in Monmouth. It was my day off and I got the call at home,” Cecil said. He said he started to suffer from burnout as Nash-Finch “dictated” ways of doing business that he didn’t agree with, such as selling select, rather than choice beef. “I was told they were doing less than half the business we were doing in ’98,” Cecil said of Econofoods when it closed. “It didn’t have to happen.” An unlikely place for business analysis perhaps, but there you go. The other one talks about consolidation in the market. This is corroborated by the business almanacs and Moody's listings and other stuff that come up on a Google Books search. As I said, I think it meets GNG, and I think more data could be found in Newspapers.com which has over 20,000 results in Iowa, but I'm at a keep because I believe GNG-level sourcing exists and more could be found for an article here. Andre🚐 06:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. However, as a company, it must meet the standards for companies and do not feel that these references do. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stricter WP:SNG standard for what is presumed notable, but any article is notable if it meets WP:GNG. Unless that has changed, the stricter standard is supplemental. Besides which, the purpose is to keep out promotional articles, not the history of regional supermarkets. Notability as a guideline has interpretation, but it's not WP:IAR to use GNG instead of CORP, because it's a supplemental presumption guideline that doesn't obviate GNG. You are free to still opine delete here of course. WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) Emphasis mine.Andre🚐 05:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless that has changed" - That has not changed so you are quoting the SNG and GNG guidelines correctly. It is interesting as I argued this same contention (the one you present here) years ago but the company deletion discussions have, at least for the last four or five years, applied NCORP over GNG which is the reason for my contention to delete this page. Would be interesting to get a consensus otherwise as it would allow for keeping some pages that would be borderline under NCORP but likely meet GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much guaranteed that when an editor starts arguing to ignore NCORP, its an acknowledgement that the topic fails the criteria. HighKing++ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Andre said. WiinterU 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also relevant that both Keep !voters acknowledge that the sourcing fails NCORP HighKing++ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft to provide time for further research and potential expansion. Newspapers.com returns 34,082 matches for "Econofoods", though at first glance many are advertisements and many are for uses other than this subject. Nonetheless, some are substantive articles addressing this article subject, and a deeper dive might uncover enough to meet NCORP. BD2412 T 00:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPark Christian Academy

[edit]
GreenPark Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One-line stub for an obscure religious private school in St. Louis. The only references are non-independent. I wouldn't really call this to be significant coverage. This makes a passing mention of the school closing in 2010. There's a couple sentences here about the school closing, but that article is about a different entity. I just don't see a pass of WP:NSCHOOL here; it says something about the article subject that this school has apparently been closed for over 15 years and our article on it has not been updated with that information. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Martyr Helmet Dêraluk

[edit]
Operation Martyr Helmet Dêraluk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article describes what was likely a minor skirmish and says of it “There is no independent confirmation from reliable sources.” Which means we should not have an article on it. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky FRU

[edit]
Sky FRU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the article itself only cites primary sources, I still tried to look for the sources for this subject and there are some but they are about announcements regarding this airline. This fails WP:N. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor-Fliedner-Gymnasium

[edit]
Theodor-Fliedner-Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TNT. Article created October 2024. Retrieval date on some sources showing 2019. It would just take a lot of time to go through each source. It would be more effective to get of it, then someone else can re-create it if needed. Created and edited upon by a problematic AI injector. See the talk page and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Possible_academic_boosterism_ref_spamming. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Safety Authority

[edit]
E-Safety Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

E-safety authority, has not been formally established. While it has been approved in a cabinet meeting, this does not constitute actual creation. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of South Korea, Ankara

[edit]
Embassy of South Korea, Ankara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Only 2 primary sources provided. A search for sources found incidents like this which don't really add to notability. https://www.turkiyetoday.com/turkiye/south-korean-ambassador-jeong-yeondoo-prefers-yht-for-ankara-trip-539/ LibStar (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you suggest a Redirect or Merge, specify the target article or action can't be taken on your suggestion. A source review of recently located sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarita Botsman

[edit]
Tarita Botsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2022. Article is largely cited to primary and non-independent sources. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SINGER. 4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Rousseau Grigg

[edit]
Taylor Rousseau Grigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet WP:ENT or WP:SIGCOV. Minimal sourcing outside of her death. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for new sources that apparently exist. The keep !votes should provide the references they think that show notability, rather than simply putting out a carpet term that notability exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please see previous Reisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier Bancorp

[edit]
Glacier Bancorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources are routine. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date Brokerage Analyst Name Action Rating Price Target Upside/Downside on Report Date Details
10/2/2024 Raymond James Boost Target Outperform ➝ Outperform $45.00 ➝ $48.00 +7.55% View Report Details
9/20/2024 Truist Securities Boost Target Hold ➝ Hold $46.00 ➝ $50.00 +6.68% View Report Details
8/27/2024 Piper Sandler Reiterated Rating Neutral ➝ Neutral $38.00 ➝ $38.00 -17.84% View Report Details
4/23/2024 Stephens Lower Target Equal Weight ➝ Equal Weight $44.00 ➝ $40.00 +4.49% View Report Details
4/22/2024 DA Davidson Lower Target Buy ➝ Buy $48.00 ➝ $45.00 +25.28% View Report Details

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1937 State Park

[edit]
1937 State Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that was copied and pasted from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search reveals links about the band but not the song. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Anderson (director)

[edit]
Mitch Anderson (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant coverage. I came across the article when nominating several of his directed films for deletion (see 1, 2, 3), and subsequent searches for him specifically have failed to turn up more sources, even after narrowing the search terms to avoid other Mitch Andersons. His IMDb credits are relatively light, supporting the idea that there is likely no significant coverage of him or his work. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very minimal coverage now in the article, does not seem to meet notability. I can't find anything about this person, also his personal website appears to be inactive. Trex32 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in the Neutral Zone of Junik

[edit]
Conflict in the Neutral Zone of Junik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only has two citations and it's for the background, which is basically copied what is already in the Neutral Zone of Junik. There's nothing that supports any of the text in the article. Also looks like a WP:POVFORK of Neutral Zone of Junik and Kachak Movement.

I tried to move it to draft but it was disallowed as this same article was already created by another editor and recently moved to draftspace by @Joy: Draft:Conflict in the Neutral Zone of Junik. Griboski (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"